Was The Grumman "Bearcat" Flown Off Carriers?

Would that be the Douglas B-26 (JD) or the Martin B-26 (JM) :O)

Jack


"Nice Again" wrote in message
...
I can picture the JD in my mind but I have trouble with the B-26.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Nice Again" wrote in message
...

F fighter
8 eighth model
F Grumman


I did not ask for an explanation of the Navy's bizarre designation
system,
it was your message that was a mystery.

Nice Again wrote:
That's one of the points, you can tell the mfg. Doh!


It was was pointed out in another forum that you can tell
the manufacturer of an AF craft if the complete designator
is used. Such as:

P-38J-25-LO
P-47D-25-RE
P-51H-5-NA
B-17F-1-DL (Built by Douglas)
B-17F-1-BO (Boeing)

The Navy simply made it a more integral part of the
designation. I do not know if this holds true still in the
standardised designation system.

--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVE anti-spam measure to reply

Nice Again wrote:
That's one of the points, you can tell the mfg. Doh!

I'd call it a bug, not a feature. If it told you the designer, it might be
of some value, but manufacturer names are often too fluid to be helpful. As
is, the system is potentially quite confusing, as the examples given before
can show (F4U, FG and F3B are the same plane!?!) It makes little sense to
use a system that requires different designations for the same aircraft just
because it was built by different companies or the factory changed
ownership.

Moreover, from an amateur's perspective, the Navy system makes it difficult
to instantly recognize which aircraft came first in production, or tell
which are contemporaries of each other. The F4U and F4D aren't even
remotely of the same era, for example, but you can't tell that from their
designations. OTOH, you can tell that the F-14, -15, and -16 came in that
order and probably realize that they are rough contemporaries.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Nice Again" wrote in message
...

That's one of the points, you can tell the mfg. Doh!


So what? With that system you wind up with multiple designations for
virtually identical aircraft. A Corsair could be an F4U, an FG, or an F3A.
Boeing, Douglas and Vega all built Flying Fortresses, but under the USAAF
system they were all B-17s.

"Nice Again" wrote in message
...

The Navy system wasn't bizzarre.


The Navy system had multiple designations for virtually identical aircraft.
That's bizarre.



It made it easy to identiy a/c (mental
picture) by just the lettr and numbers.


No easier than the USAAF/USAF system, which had the advantages of order and
logic.

Orval Fairbairn wrote in message .. .
In article ,
(Kates Saloon and Knife Emporium) wrote:

Was the Grumman "Bearcat" ever flown off of aircraft carriers? Was it even
flown by the Navy? I am trying to settle a dispute between my husband and my
brother.

The Bearcat was the second type flown by the Blue Algels -- the first
type was the Hellcat. In fact, the Angels flew Grummans until the F-4
replaced the F-11F Tigers about 1969.

And Navy pilots flying F8F-1's set back-to-back climb to time records
from a standing stop to 10000 feet, the first at 100 seconds and then
the second at 97.8 seconds at the 1946 Cleveland Air Show.

"Nice Again" wrote in message
...

I can picture the JD in my mind but I have trouble with the B-26.


I can picture them both, and the JM too.

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
link.net...

I'd call it a bug, not a feature. If it told you the designer, it might
be
of some value, but manufacturer names are often too fluid to be helpful.
As
is, the system is potentially quite confusing, as the examples given
before
can show (F4U, FG and F3B are the same plane!?!)


Ah, but they're not the same plane! The F4U was, of course, the Vought
Corsair, and the FG was a Corsair built by Goodyear. But the F3B was a
Boeing biplane fighter of the late twenties. The Brewster-built Corsair was
the F3A.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Nice Again" wrote

The Navy system wasn't bizzarre.

The Navy system had multiple designations for virtually identical aircraft.
That's bizarre.

It made it easy to identiy a/c (mental
picture) by just the lettr and numbers.

No easier than the USAAF/USAF system, which had the advantages of order and
logic.

But.

The USAAF/USAF system didn't permit any fun aircraft, like B1RDs.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

"Ogden Johnson III" wrote in message
...

The USAAF/USAF system didn't permit any fun aircraft, like B1RDs.


The Navy system didn't allow a B1RD.